I do not feel personally responsible for children dying in Africa. I'm not ashamed to admit that. He is literally taking that quote out of context, as it came from another thread regarding a different subject than the one we are discussing.

Like I said, the point was not to say that you didn't care about religious people, just that your sense of morality and/or empathy is warped, thus proving that your ideas about marginalization are wrong.

I do not feel personally responsible for children dying in Africa. I'm not ashamed to admit that. He is literally taking that quote out of context, as it came from another thread regarding a different subject than the one we are discussing.

Like I said, the point was not to say that you didn't care about religious people, just that your sense of morality and/or empathy is warped, thus proving that your ideas about marginalization are wrong.

I think most people don't feel personally responsible for children dying in Africa, otherwise more would be done to help. You call it warped, I call it realistic.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Do you think this website has helped free any theists of their irrational beliefs?Does this website restrict anyones freedom?Does this website use mockery as a tool?Does this website try to marginalize religious beliefs?

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Then to be consistent, you must not be able to see how marginalizing any other belief or action can be done without marginalizing the segment of society which believes or acts in the way being marginalized.

Right, but religious belief is not an action. It is illegal for a person go down to the local Wicca gift shop and burn the witch. They will not be found innocent of the crime just because their Bible told them to do it. As a result witches are as safe as anybody else in America today.

I know it's not. I included an "action" example for the purpose of demonstration of what I'm talking about. Since the topic is marginalizing beliefs, I also included a "belief" example...though, as Joe has noted, people are having their actions marginalized in your counter-example.

Unfortunately that depends on your definition of *abuse* and is a subject for which I am currently struggling with.

Every point either of us brings up will depend on the definitions of the words we use to make those points, so I don't see why you're bothering to bring it up here. It does not bear on my point; it only distracts.

I see how it equates with the subjective nature of the definition of *marginalization* though. I would not have as much trouble accepting you using the word marginalize if you said you were using it the way Joe is trying to use it. I would still voice my concern however.

This doesn't do any better of a job of addressing what I said. Care to take another stab at it? I was making a point in my paragraph. It had to do with the question at the end.

I did find something I think can put the language being used into perspective. ...What good does it do to use the same tactics as the EVIL Christians?

Your question makes no sense. We are using those 'evil' tactics right now. They are enshrined in our culture and our law. We just take the marginalization of those things, such as of egregious child abuse, for granted as "right".

Another example that might be educational: The belief that "God hates fags" and that, following from this, gays are abominations and don't deserve the same rights as others.

This view has been marginalized by much of society. Is that oppression? Is that wrong? Don't dodge this time, please, because this very sense of "marginalization" is what Joe is advocating.

We can create various types of arguments that will work on various types of people[1], but we will never have a "complete victory". These people are like the "bluepills" in the Matrix. Their brains simply cannot handle the fact that everything they've dedicated their lives to is wrong, so they will deny it until they die.

Note that humans are individuals, so no argument will ever have a 100% success rate, regardless of how good it is.

Sure, they can believe whatever ridiculous things they want, just like the New Agers and the UFO cultists and the 2012 apocalypse/sudden planetary enlightenment believers and the New World Order/Illuminati conspiracy theorists and all the rest. And their stubbornly-held ridiculous ideas should be marginalized when it comes to anything to do with how society should be run, just like all the rest. Notice that there is no "complete victory" over any of those things. Skeptical Inquirer has not worked itself out of a job and there is no indication that it will in the foreseeable future.

No one here expects that mockery or any other tactic will result in a "complete victory" where everyone becomes a Bayesian Master. You're arguing against a straw man.

Imagine this:You are a theist. You and an atheist start talking. He finds out you're a theist and yells "Hey, your beliefs are fucking retarded, man! Seriously? We all came from a rib-woman and a dust-man? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Here, have some rational arguments against that."How would you react?

I would have to overcome embarrassment, especially if there was an audience, and the mockery was even a little bit more clever than that. Then, I would feel a need to try to explain why Young Earth Creationism is actually sensible and scientific. This need to overcome the "giggle factor" would impede my ability to evangelize, or get Creationism taught in the schools. On the other hand, if I could be a Republican candidate for President of the United States, and raise my hand along with most of my competitors when we're asked if we reject evolution, and I'm still a condendah after the end of the next news cycle, then I'm already on third base.

Yeah, and the kind of hardcore believers you're talking about never ignore brilliantly argued, fully-referenced logical and evidential arguments against religion. All through this thread you've been emphasizing that the theists will never, never, NEVERNEVERNEVER change their minds because they [Jack Nicholson]CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH![/Jack Nicholson]. And then you hold up, as a bugaboo, that they might ignore us if we mock them?

Yes, fact-proof faith-heads won't change their minds. We. Get. It. Really. This is precisely why mockery should be in our tool-set. You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into to begin with. They hold their beliefs for non-rational "reasons," such as childhood indoctrination, fear of death, and group conformity. Mockery (among other things, like passionately expressed moral outrage) is effective at changing beliefs and actions in non-rational people because it works on the non-rational levels where their minds function. One of the primary non-rational factors shaping what people believe and do is the perceived beliefs of their fellow humans. See: The Asch Conformity Experiments. Collective mockery of a belief sends a powerful signal: "This Belief Is Ridiculous." For people who willfully shelter their beliefs from rational scrutiny, such non-rational signals are the only way to get through. If the person wants to guard their belief from ridicule and social opprobrium, they will be more likely to hide it, except in the presence of others who share it, i.e. in church. Which means: they'll be a lot less likely to be running around proclaiming that society ought to be run on the basis of that belief.

At the very least, they will feel a need to come up with a rational fig-leaf to advance as their reason for the policy. Example: anti-abortionists who argue that abortions cause breast cancer or long-term depression, instead of "it makes baby Jesus cry." As soon as they try to enter the arena of reason, they're on our turf and we crush them with the facts.

Right after 9-11, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson both got on national TV and blamed it on the liberals, gays, and atheists causing Yahweh to "remove his hand of protection" from America. This brought a shitstorm of criticism down on their heads, because Americans weren't in the mood to hang their heads and say, "Yes, we deserved it, because Britney Spears is too sexy. Please forgive us, Al Qaida!" And you know what happened? Falwell and Robertson backed right the fuck down. Did they change their minds and become critical-thinking Rationalists? No. But, we didn't have fundamentalist lynch mobs hunting down gays, lesbians, and Democrats because they got Yahweh pissed off at us, either. Their viewpoint was marginalized. And it was a good thing.

After the death of Jerry Falwell, Christopher Hitchens was all over the talk shows puncturing the halo of sanctimonious eulogy being erected around him and reminding the world that Falwell was a disgusting man promoting disgusting ideas, with (in addition to an unimpeachable factual case) brilliantly-executed wit and mockery. And it was a good thing.

Now imagine this:You are a theist. You and an atheist start talking. He finds out you're a theist. You have a debate about the existence of god, he refutes your every argument with his superior knowledge of the Bible, logic and analogies.How would you react?

Sorry, that's not what I meant at all. If you read the part I quoted from kcrady, you'll see that he asked me to give examples. I did. I'm not saying "let's not ridicule them because they might be right". They're not.

I'm saying "let's not ridicule them because some bad shit might happen". We all know how fundiesgood christians are; they're not above killing anyonecleansing the United States ofAmericaGod, and they would probably be prayed for if they did it.Hell, given the fundies'good christians' usual state of mind, I'm surprised they haven't tried to exterminate all of usconvert us using the power of the holy ghost because of the billboards.

OK, set aside mockery for a moment. What about moral outrage? Can we use that? As in an attitude of: "You people sanction genocide. You have no moral high ground to stand on. You have no morality at all, because you confuse morality with chust followink ordersss. That didn't work at Nuremberg, and it won't work now. So, no, you have no right to talk about morality or values or ethics at all, much less exhibit the unmitigated gall to act as if you've got the patent and trademark!"

Or should we limit ourselves to "Here are some logical arguments you can safely ignore. Please don't hurt us!"

In 1924, the KKK had 4 million members. President Woodrow Wilson is on record agreeing with the pro-Klan "history" presented in the influential motion picture The Birth of a Nation. Lynchings of black people used to be performed in open public gatherings, just good clean family fun. The Civil Rights struggle was a long, hard fight.

The minorities cannot marginalize the majority, by the very definition of "marginalize". It's absurd and illogical.

Really? Minorities marginalize majorities every single time social change occurs. That's why it's called social change. How do you think the Suffragettes won? It wasn't because they had the most votes!

Logged

"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

The message seems to be that religion is a pointless add-on to human life. It does not alter anything. It does not prevent or encourage the worst or the greatest behaviours. Not only is it pointless but, like carrying anything around with you, it hinders your progress as it makes for lazy thinking.

This attitude is self-contradictory. If religion "hinders your progress as it makes for lousy thinking," then it does alter something. And if it hinders progress--but not regress--and if "lazy thinking" makes one less able to understand reality and make good decisions, then it will generate a tendency toward "worst" rather than "best" even if some believers use it to motivate good deeds. Only evil has an actual use for an all-purpose anti-criticism shield, which is what religious faith is.

Edit: if defenders of theism really want to argue that it does nothing, then why cling to it?

« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 07:31:38 AM by kcrady »

Logged

"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

I'm not seeing it Jayb and Lucifer. You're not convincing me of anything, other than the fact that you don't like Joeb. Neither of you are making a convincing case for your position. The closest I've come to agreeing with any of what you are saying, is to accept that there will be some Christians who are not happy being mocked or marginalized.

I don't care about hurting anyone's feelings. How many more centuries are atheists going to be the most hated group in the U.S., just because we don't believe? How many more centuries is the U.S. going to pander to religious nut jobs who think it is a good idea to pray to Jesus to solve our problems?

Do you think we would be having votes today to recognize same sex marriages in many states if the gay movement had openly mocked and ridiculed the religious majority in this country during the 50's and 60's?

I think the militant language and attitude of atheists like Joe do more to damage public perception of atheism. He is the perfect stereotype of the evil, soulless, baby-eating, arrogant atheist. Hell, he's even a white male. I am not saying this to disparage Joe. I am saying this to outline the fact that on the other side you have Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists Church. They are doing more to marginalize the religion than any atheist could ever hope to do from outside the faith.

They are a caricature of every negative aspect of religion. They are what justifies atheist complaints about religion today.

Logged

Every night I flirt with death and every morning I wake up disappointed.

Nobody. I grew up with christians, went to school with christians and never discussed religion with any non-christians.Granted, my memories of that time are hazy, but I think I'd remember my first encounter with an atheist.

I can't speak for Joe or anyone else on this thread, but I'm not talking about prowling the sidewalks collaring everyone with a cross necklace to point and laugh. Or visiting Granny in her retirement home to make fun of her belief in the Blessed Virgin Mary. There may be some contexts in one's personal life when mockery is the right approach, but I expect those instances to be pretty rare (mainly in response to aggressive evangelism or "You're gonna burn in hell!" screeds, i.e., self-defense). The best targets for mockery are public figures, and the best venues for it are the biggest, most public media channels one can find. Christopher Hitchins is a master at this. Books, blogs, YouTube videos (see Thunderf00t's "Why People Laugh At Creationists" series) and forums like this one are also good places.

Logged

"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

I would have to overcome embarrassment, especially if there was an audience, and the mockery was even a little bit more clever than that. Then, I would feel a need to try to explain why Young Earth Creationism is actually sensible and scientific. This need to overcome the "giggle factor" would impede my ability to evangelize, or get Creationism taught in the schools. On the other hand, if I could be a Republican candidate for President of the United States, and raise my hand along with most of my competitors when we're asked if we reject evolution, and I'm still a condendah after the end of the next news cycle, then I'm already on third base.

I gotta say, I very much doubt this.The audience would most likely agree with you, according to USA statistics. Why would you feel shame unless you already believed that your beliefs were ridiculous? Most creationists do not realize that their beliefs are ridiculous.

Yeah, and the kind of hardcore believers you're talking about never ignore brilliantly argued, fully-referenced logical and evidential arguments against religion. All through this thread you've been emphasizing that the theists will never, never, NEVERNEVERNEVER change their minds because they [Jack Nicholson]CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH![/Jack Nicholson]. And then you hold up, as a bugaboo, that they might ignore us if we mock them?

Even open minded individuals would ignore people who mock them. Why should you pay attention to someone who just wants to call you an idiot?

Yes, fact-proof faith-heads won't change their minds. We. Get. It. Really. This is precisely why mockery should be in our tool-set. You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into to begin with. They hold their beliefs for non-rational "reasons," such as childhood indoctrination, fear of death, and group conformity. Mockery (among other things, like passionately expressed moral outrage) is effective at changing beliefs and actions in non-rational people because it works on the non-rational levels where their minds function. One of the primary non-rational factors shaping what people believe and do is the perceived beliefs of their fellow humans. See: The Asch Conformity Experiments. Collective mockery of a belief sends a powerful signal: "This Belief Is Ridiculous." For people who willfully shelter their beliefs from rational scrutiny, such non-rational signals are the only way to get through. If the person wants to guard their belief from ridicule and social opprobrium, they will be more likely to hide it, except in the presence of others who share it, i.e. in church. Which means: they'll be a lot less likely to be running around proclaiming that society ought to be run on the basis of that belief.

At the very least, they will feel a need to come up with a rational fig-leaf to advance as their reason for the policy. Example: anti-abortionists who argue that abortions cause breast cancer or long-term depression, instead of "it makes baby Jesus cry." As soon as they try to enter the arena of reason, they're on our turf and we crush them with the facts.

I did not know this. I will consider if the increased tension is worth the potential benefit and get back to you.

OK, set aside mockery for a moment. What about moral outrage? Can we use that? As in an attitude of: "You people sanction genocide. You have no moral high ground to stand on. You have no morality at all, because you confuse morality with chust followink ordersss. That didn't work at Nuremberg, and it won't work now. So, no, you have no right to talk about morality or values or ethics at all, much less exhibit the unmitigated gall to act as if you've got the patent and trademark!"

Or should we limit ourselves to "Here are some logical arguments you can safely ignore. Please don't hurt us!"

Moral outrage is not only acceptable but should be a part of everything, IMO.Also, I don't like how your last sentence implies that you "knew" I would disagree. I'd call this "strawman", but I'm not exactly sure if it fits.

Really? Minorities marginalize majorities every single time social change occurs. That's why it's called social change. How do you think the Suffragettes won? It wasn't because they had the most votes!

Let me rephrase: Minorities (in the sense that they have opinions that other people do not share) cannot marginalize the majority (in the sense that they have opinions that other people share).

I can't speak for Joe or anyone else on this thread, but I'm not talking about prowling the sidewalks collaring everyone with a cross necklace to point and laugh. Or visiting Granny in her retirement home to make fun of her belief in the Blessed Virgin Mary. There may be some contexts in one's personal life when mockery is the right approach, but I expect those instances to be pretty rare (mainly in response to aggressive evangelism or "You're gonna burn in hell!" screeds, i.e., self-defense). The best targets for mockery are public figures, and the best venues for it are the biggest, most public media channels one can find. Christopher Hitchins is a master at this. Books, blogs, YouTube videos (see Thunderf00t's "Why People Laugh At Creationists" series) and forums like this one are also good places.

Lucifer, look at your own signature. "God is Santa on steroids." Isn't that the kind of stuff you're saying we shouldn't be doing? You're doing it with every. Single. Post. So doesn't that mean you agree that mockery is OK at least sometimes? If not, could you square the circle for me please?

Lucifer, look at your own signature. "God is Santa on steroids." Isn't that the kind of stuff you're saying we shouldn't be doing? You're doing it with every. Single. Post. So doesn't that mean you agree that mockery is OK at least sometimes? If not, could you square the circle for me please?

I consider that a joke, as well as a reasonable analogy. However, if you want to see it that way, be my guest.

In Land of the Spotted Eagle, Chief Luther Standing Bear of the Lakota tells about how they dealt with wrong thinking/action (in his time-1800s).

If someone lied or stole or otherwise went against the tribal ways.They ignored them for a time. As the offender would approach or walk by, they simply turned their backs to them. It didn't take long for the offending person to make restitution and be accepted back into the tribe with open arms.

Talk about marginalizing, or cutting off. Their system worked so well, that they didn't have police, or judges or jails.

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

In Land of the Spotted Eagle, Chief Luther Standing Bear of the Lakota tells about how they dealt with wrong thinking/action (in his time-1800s).

If someone lied or stole or otherwise went against the tribal ways.They ignored them for a time. As the offender would approach or walk by, they simply turned their backs to them. It didn't take long for the offending person to make restitution and be accepted back into the tribe with open arms.

Talk about marginalizing, or cutting off. Their system worked so well, that they didn't have police, or judges or jails.

I approve of this because the person was punished for their actions. From what I can gather, the marginalization would be based on theists' beliefs, rather than actions.

We do not have to accept them. We do not have to like them. We should marginalize (per the definition Joe provided) actions (and the people who perform them) that are harmful. Not beliefs or thoughts.

I suppose I should have been more clear on the spanking issue. I don't think that every parent has to be hitting their kids all the time. No, we don't have to spank children publicly or ridicule them when they misbehave. If someone wants to try gentle hand-holding with them and say, "There, there, you can do whatever you want just try to be careful Ok?" with a nice, big smile, go for it. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

However, I think spanking definitely has a place in responsible parenting strategy and tactics, and that children should not be privileged with a pass, by anyone who cares enough about society to raise their kids right. If you're the type who would tiptoe carefully around your kids feelings then by all means, do the same for adults when they commit a crime. But, I think it is hypocritical to sneer derisively at those criminals while advocating that we make all efforts never to offend them just because they have broken the law.

I just happen to think that spanking is okay if used properly. Although my stance on the issue is evolving.

Two months ago I would not have been in the state of mind I am in now. I was positive that spanking was beneficial to a child's development. I wouldn't have given much of a second thought to mocking or humiliating a Truebeliever tm for taking the Bible literally...ON THIS FORUM. I don't do that sort of stuff in real life, at least not in certain company.

In reviewing and researching the effects of spanking and child abuse I also read about the negative impacts emerging from other non physical means of behavior modification like isolation punishment aka "time-out" and yelling. To a child, mocking them or ridiculing them is devastating. Teen suicide is a very real problem. Since adults are essentially just big kids who survived I can assume that mocking and ridicule has the same basic affect. As a result I am in the process of reevaluating my approach to these issues.

My arguments against mocking and ridicule are more for me than anybody else as I try to figure it all out. There are new thoughts in my head.

Here is another comment from the same night I posted the ones you showed above

wait...why am I doing this...why is it so easy to make fun of people like this. fdlaieoiuroiuweoijf;alskjdflksadcvasnc,

Now i'm all conflicted again. damn it.

If the only real harm to a child from spanking is the potential psychological damage, then it is in the same category as all other non physical forms of corrective punishment. Mocking and ridicule causes psychological harm and therefore is just as bad as spanking or hitting. Therefor I am starting to think that it's a bad idea to make fun of people.

In any case I think it is a horrible idea to have phrases like "marginalize them" associated with your ideas for correcting a social issue.

Logged

Every night I flirt with death and every morning I wake up disappointed.

In Land of the Spotted Eagle, Chief Luther Standing Bear of the Lakota tells about how they dealt with wrong thinking/action (in his time-1800s).

If someone lied or stole or otherwise went against the tribal ways.They ignored them for a time. As the offender would approach or walk by, they simply turned their backs to them. It didn't take long for the offending person to make restitution and be accepted back into the tribe with open arms.

I once heard about another system that was even more effective -- and intriguing, in certain ways:

Quote from: Nathaniel Branden

I recall a story I once read by a psychiatrist, a story about a tribe that has a rather unusual way of dealing with moral wrongdoers or lawbreakers. Such a person, when his or her infraction is discovered, is not reproached or condemned but is brought into the center of the village square — and the whole tribe gathers around. Everyone who has ever known this person since the day he or she was born steps forward, one by one, and talks about anything and everything good this person has ever been known to have done. The speakers aren't allowed to exaggerate or make mountains out of molehills; they have to be realistic, truthful, factual. And the person just sits there, listening, as one by one people talk about all the good things this person has done in the course of his or her life. Sometimes, the process takes several days. When it's over, the person is released and everyone goes home and there is no discussion of the offense — and there is almost no repetition of offenses (Zunin, 1970).

Yes, I heard of this (I believe) from Chester Mahooty, keeper of 400 Zuni songs.

Awesome.

ADDED:Depending on which definition one uses for rebuke and chastise, it seems much kinder than the Christian Gods way (Chastising and rebuking):http://bible.cc/revelation/3-19.htm

« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 10:24:10 AM by monkeymind »

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Lucifer, this website does user mockery as a tool, and it was created with the sole purpose of marginalizing religion. What else do you think the purpose of this website is?

I'm done with this debate. We've proven that marginalization has worked to change the minds of majorities since the beginning of human history. Mockery is just one of the tools used to achieve it, and it is very effective. Hitchens and Dawkins use it regularly, and they are spearheading the modern atheist movement.

You've brought nothing solid to refute this, and we've dragged on for many pages trying to convince you. It seems to me your argument boils down to just not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings. Well, you can sit on the sidelines if you don't want to get your dress dirty, but the men have work to do. You can thank us when it's over.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

I'm done with this debate. We've proven that marginalization has worked to change the minds of majorities since the beginning of human history.

As I have explained, marginalization of people for their beliefs and thoughts rather than their actions is unfair. Do you approve of marginalization of atheists for their thoughts and (lack of religious) beliefs? If not, why the double standard?

Mockery is just one of the tools used to achieve it, and it is very effective. Hitchens and Dawkins use it regularly, and they are spearheading the modern atheist movement.

I don't care about what Hitchens and Dawkins do. I hadn't even heard of them until I joined this site. (So much for "spearheading the modern atheist movement").And, as I have said, I am now rethinking my position on mockery.